Some may have thought after reading my other documents that I had a real down and didn’t like Inventor but the truth is different.  Inventor on its own is no better or worse than any other software package of this type.

Inventor is the victim of its release date, the very poor decisions behind its creation and the fact that it probably was not necessary.

There is no question in my mind that Autodesk in developing its MCAD market should have simply got on with doing better job of developing AutoCAD and Mechanical Desktop, heavily promoting these two as companion products and in doing so Autodesk would have had this market so thoroughly covered that their long term future was assured.

I do not agree that Inventor was needed.  In chasing this market, what ever that means, simply meant Autodesk became a follower not a leader and the situation was not even forced on them.  As they have felt it was necessary at the very least Inventor, at its original release, should have been able to match AutoCAD and Mechanical Desktop features not go backwards as it has done.

The concentration on features in software development is important; on interfaces much less important are these changes if necessary at all.  But there is one glaring deficiency in CAD software and this deficiency is not confined to Autodesk products.  Indeed in this area AutoCADs creators should be thanked for forward thinking, Autodesk simply has not carried this thinking forward as they should have.

I am alluding to the inability of users of CAD software to share data across their various packages and platforms.  Now before the shouting starts and every one tells me that this is impossible, I will say it more likely to be possible than is creating a solo 3D modeller that does all designers and draughters need.  And what’s more it is more important to spend resources on developing this feature; the reason for this importance has to do with the variations found in users of CAD software.  Put in simple terms CAD users come in all shapes and sizes with qualifications, experience, backgrounds and incomes to match.  CAD software should allow them to choose the most suitable tool for their requirements and or situation and the data they generate should be able to move to any other user, manufacturer or company wanting to use this data without hindrance. (Drawings on media that can be rolled, folded and bound has done this remarkably well for centuries!)

We have spent a lot of time concentrating on software and data but few people link data to the knowledge people have, CAD software simply allows users to express that knowledge just as pen and paper and the drawing board did and still does.

The duty for achieving this goal falls to all vendors and CAD users but in the main it must fall to the vendors and major CAD users because; whilst the benefits would be utilized by all, major organisations employing CAD software draw on individuals and small companies quite heavily and achieving this goal would widen their choice and ability to do this instead of narrowing the choices as we have seen in recent years.  ‘Verticalization’ has created fragmentation and that has reduced the pool and ability to share data not improved it.

So, softwares ability to achieve this level of ‘Flexibility’ must be one of the main features and head all CAD users ‘wishlists’ and it should come with a warning to CAD vendors and developers that if they do not achieve this their products, despite their feature set, will not be considered as the tools of choice.

I have said to many, instead of companies wanting their contractors to match the software they have it would be better for them, the major users, to issue their CAD vendors with a warning that the products to be considered as their CAD tools of the future will be the ones that can talk to the most CAD systems with the least loss of data and functionality and the best bi-directional connection.

Achievable yes, ‘Pie in the sky’ it is not, after all its not that long ago Main Frame CAD said PC-CAD would never do what it could do, people said modelling on a PC would never happen etc., etc. and it all has, but it has stalled and one of the reasons is the ‘log jamb’ CAD data presents.  The ‘log jamb’ can even be found in moving between MDT and Inventor and surprisingly between versions of AutoCAD Mechanical (try and figure that brain fade out?).

The stumbling blocks and main resistors in this development are the CAD vendors.  They say this development is too difficult but see a threat to their respective market share and as a result fight in the market place for a greater share hoping this position will in some way protect them from not being the product of choice by the most.  Nice if you could rely on disgruntled end-user loyalty but history puts a different spin on this strategy.  The rewards in the CAD market place for co-operation in this area, not just agreements of co-operation that we hear about and from which we never see real results, will be the market share they deserve and are most suited for.

Push for this, it is more important to you, and your profitability, as an end-user of CAD than much of what you are going to see from CAD vendors over the next several years if you don’t.

As I have done in the prologue and other documents, I issue an invitation to any person who may wish to respond to this document, supporting comments or dissenting no matter, your views will be respected as I trust mine will be also.

R. Paul Waddington.
Proprietor – cadWest.